You did what? I berated you for what? Where is this matter discussed daily?
YECs don’t accept established science, but they aren’t a serious problem because their influence is limited. Despite the current administration’s best efforts, they have had no influence on science funding, publication, or academic hiring/curricula. So far. They’re an annoyance that might in the future rise to the level of a problem for science. But not yet. And this is why I asked you for clarification.
Are you sure? Why? Then again, if you replace “genetic” with “historical”, that destroys the question. There are several possible Adams. To list a few:
- Created, recent (6-10ka), genetic Adam.
- Created, ancient (>700ka) genetic Adam.
- Uncreated, ancient (>700ka) genetic Adam.
- Created, recent genealogical Adam.
- Uncreated, recent genealogical Adam.
- Uncreated, recent historical Adam.
By “created” I refer to fiat creation of the couple (and Adam is short for Adam and Eve), out of the dust of the ground/rib or whatever. By “uncreated” I refer to descent from parents in the ordinary way. Genetic Adam is the sole ancestor of all humans: either the only couple, or a bottleneck of 2, or (requiring further miracles) the sole coalescent of the human genome. Genealogical Adam is one of many ancestors of all humans. Historical Adam is a couple that existed but are neither the sole genetic nor genealogical ancestors of everyone, and presumably original sin is transferred in some other way than by descent.
#1 is straight YEC. #2 is possibly OEC. #3 is the bottleneck scenario. #4 is what Swamidass is pushing. I don’t know anyone who favors #5, and I’d like to know why. I think @vjtorley favors #6. It’s not clear which the Catholic church is for. And I don’t know anyone who favors any other notion.